Comparison Overview

Cicis Pizza

VS

Jack in the Box

Cicis Pizza

1080 W Bethel Rd, None, Coppell, TX, US, 75019
Last Update: 2025-12-17
Between 700 and 749

In 1985, Joe Croce and Mike Cole opened one To-Go pizza restaurant in Plano, TX. A year later, they established Cicis as the “Best Pizza Value Anywhere” by developing the Unlimited Pizza Buffet. Cicis currently operates over 300 restaurants in more than 30 states. The newly re-designed and rebranded Cicis concept pushes the limits of the regular restaurant experience by offering a variety of pizza, salad, soups, pasta and desserts including such popular items as stuffed crust and flatbread pizzas. The customer experience also includes a fun game room making the concept very family oriented and kid friendly.

NAICS: 7225
NAICS Definition: Restaurants and Other Eating Places
Employees: 2,251
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
1

Jack in the Box

9357 Spectrum Center Blvd, None, San Diego, California, US, 92123
Last Update: 2025-12-18
Between 750 and 799

Jack in the Box has always been the place for those who live outside the box. Where you can try new things and order what you want when you want it. Now, let’s get to the facts! Did you know Jack in the Box was founded on February 21, 1951, by a businessman named Robert O. Peterson in San Diego, California? Yeah, you probably did. Did you know Jack in the Box pioneered a number of firsts in the quick-serve industry, including menu items that are now staples on most fast-food menu boards, like the breakfast sandwich and portable salads. Sure. Did you know Jack in the Box has over 2000 locations? Everyone knows that. Whatever the reason you came to Jack in the Box's LinkedIn page...welcome, we’re happy to have you here.

NAICS: 7225
NAICS Definition: Restaurants and Other Eating Places
Employees: 23,896
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cicispizza.jpeg
Cicis Pizza
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/jack-in-the-box.jpeg
Jack in the Box
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Cicis Pizza
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Jack in the Box
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Restaurants Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Cicis Pizza in 2025.

Incidents vs Restaurants Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Jack in the Box in 2025.

Incident History — Cicis Pizza (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Cicis Pizza cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Jack in the Box (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Jack in the Box cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cicispizza.jpeg
Cicis Pizza
Incidents

Date Detected: 08/2022
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2016
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Social Engineering
Motivation: Financial gain
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2015
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/jack-in-the-box.jpeg
Jack in the Box
Incidents

Date Detected: 1/2019
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Phishing
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Jack in the Box company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Cicis Pizza company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Cicis Pizza company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Jack in the Box company.

In the current year, Jack in the Box company and Cicis Pizza company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Jack in the Box company nor Cicis Pizza company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Both Jack in the Box company and Cicis Pizza company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Neither Jack in the Box company nor Cicis Pizza company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Cicis Pizza company nor Jack in the Box company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Cicis Pizza nor Jack in the Box holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Jack in the Box company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Cicis Pizza company.

Jack in the Box company employs more people globally than Cicis Pizza company, reflecting its scale as a Restaurants.

Neither Cicis Pizza nor Jack in the Box holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Cicis Pizza nor Jack in the Box holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Cicis Pizza nor Jack in the Box holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Cicis Pizza nor Jack in the Box holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Cicis Pizza nor Jack in the Box holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Cicis Pizza nor Jack in the Box holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

A vulnerability has been found in SeaCMS up to 13.3. The affected element is an unknown function of the file js/player/dmplayer/dmku/class/mysqli.class.php. Such manipulation of the argument page/limit leads to sql injection. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 7.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 6.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
Description

Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in HappyDevs TempTool allows Stored XSS.This issue affects TempTool: from n/a through 1.3.1.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L
Description

Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in Tormorten WP Microdata allows Stored XSS.This issue affects WP Microdata: from n/a through 1.0.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L
Description

Exposure of Sensitive System Information to an Unauthorized Control Sphere vulnerability in HappyDevs TempTool allows Retrieve Embedded Sensitive Data.This issue affects TempTool: from n/a through 1.3.1.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

A vulnerability has been found in Tenda FH1201 1.2.0.14(408). Affected is the function sprintf of the file /goform/SetIpBind. Such manipulation of the argument page leads to stack-based buffer overflow. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 9.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
cvss3
Base: 8.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
cvss4
Base: 7.4
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X